2 ms·

>>(1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility

>>(1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction". You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. >>real transactions very often do have negative externalities somewhere, so few completely meet the definition of "uncoerced". Well, here it is almost. Still the two actors gain, they are not coerced. The problem is other people lose and there might overall loss in the system. You would need to redefine coercion to pretty big extent to cover for what is actually the problem.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. No, I didn't. The definition of uncoerced in #2 ("no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction") along with the rational actor model (#1) makes that unnecessary -- if any person other than the decision-makers in the transaction experiences negative net utility compared to the best alternative without consenting, the transaction is not uncoerced, and they won't consent to that without violating the assumptions of the rational actor model, so the decision-makers don't need to be alone in the universe for the statement to be true as long as #1 and #2 are assumed. All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent.
- bluecalm 12y ago
  >>All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent. I think it's a bit of a stretch to extend definition of coercion to such situations (social dilemmas). The costs other people bear often aren't direct and parties in the transaction often don't realize they impose those on others. I don't believe that sentences: "Any voluntarily transaction between two actors in the system produces net gain in the system" and "Any voluntarily not coerced transaction between two actors in the system produces net gain" are equivalent. At least it's not immediately clear. Anyway, if that is what you mean then I am sorry for tone of my comment. I am just allergic to libertarian anti-intellectual assertions about transactions and free choice and maybe I'vce read too much into the way your sentence was formulated.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I think it's a bit of a stretch to extend definition of coercion to such situations That someone bears a non-consented cost as a result of a transaction is a not-uncommon definition of coercion in an economic context, and its the one mentioned upthread that, along with the rational actor model, suffices to make the statement under discussion true. I would agree that this definition is broader than what coercion generally means in general conversation, but given that definition as was suggested upthread, the further requirement offered in response that the two primary participants in the transaction are alone in the universe is not necessary to make the statement true. As I've said upthread, while those assumptions are sufficient to make the libertarian statement at issue true, they also don't represent real world transactions very well, because real actors don't adhere to the rational actor model even if it is a useful approximation with some predictive power over large aggregates in some common situations, and real transactions are very often not free of negative externalities which would constitute coercion which would invalidate the generality of the conclusion even if the rational actor model held.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. No, I didn't. The definition of uncoerced in #2 ("no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction") along with the rational actor model (#1) makes that unnecessary -- if any person other than the decision-makers in the transaction experiences negative net utility compared to the best alternative without consenting, the transaction is not uncoerced, and they won't consent to that without violating the assumptions of the rational actor model, so the decision-makers don't need to be alone in the universe for the statement to be true as long as #1 and #2 are assumed. All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent.

bluecalm 12y ago
>>All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent. I think it's a bit of a stretch to extend definition of coercion to such situations (social dilemmas). The costs other people bear often aren't direct and parties in the transaction often don't realize they impose those on others. I don't believe that sentences: "Any voluntarily transaction between two actors in the system produces net gain in the system" and "Any voluntarily not coerced transaction between two actors in the system produces net gain" are equivalent. At least it's not immediately clear. Anyway, if that is what you mean then I am sorry for tone of my comment. I am just allergic to libertarian anti-intellectual assertions about transactions and free choice and maybe I'vce read too much into the way your sentence was formulated.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I think it's a bit of a stretch to extend definition of coercion to such situations That someone bears a non-consented cost as a result of a transaction is a not-uncommon definition of coercion in an economic context, and its the one mentioned upthread that, along with the rational actor model, suffices to make the statement under discussion true. I would agree that this definition is broader than what coercion generally means in general conversation, but given that definition as was suggested upthread, the further requirement offered in response that the two primary participants in the transaction are alone in the universe is not necessary to make the statement true. As I've said upthread, while those assumptions are sufficient to make the libertarian statement at issue true, they also don't represent real world transactions very well, because real actors don't adhere to the rational actor model even if it is a useful approximation with some predictive power over large aggregates in some common situations, and real transactions are very often not free of negative externalities which would constitute coercion which would invalidate the generality of the conclusion even if the rational actor model held.